Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, political parties have new influence and money in midterm elections

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision makes it easier for political parties to put their stamp on key contests as the battle for control of Congress heats up in the midterm elections.

Simply put, the ruling “gives parties more money to spend,” said David Kolker, senior counsel at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

In a 6-3 decision on June 30, the court set limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with specific candidates.

But will it make a difference, especially in Mega-money race in the Senate in Ohio, Maine, Texas, Iowa and elsewhere?

In pure dollars from major donors, perhaps not. In strengthening the role of political parties and the way they utilize those dollars to support campaigns, yes.

“The idea that there’s going to be an explosion of money that doesn’t exist yet, I don’t really see that. The super PAC money is already there,” said Brendan Glavin, director of insight at OpenSecrets.orga nonpartisan group that tracks and analyzes money in politics. Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts independent of campaigns.

Don Levy, director of the Siena Research Institute, saw evidence in July of how eagerly the parties were to spend — or withdraw — money.

Now-defunct Maine Democratic Senate campaign candidate Graham Platner has been rocked by new allegations of sexual abuse, which he has denied. Siena conducts polls in Maine.

When the scandal broke, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Chairwoman Kirsten Gillibrand, both of New York, issued a terse statement Three sentence statement in response.

One of those sentences read: “The DSCC will not invest in the Maine Senate race if Platner remains on the ballot.”

That suggested that “money is the priority” for the party, Levy said. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is seeking re-election in a state that Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris won by 7 points in 2024.

The court and massive money

The Supreme Court has systematically broken down barriers designed to restrict massive money in politics.

In 2010 the Citizens United decision removed decades-old restrictions on non-corporate spending and allowed them to spend unlimited amounts of their corporate profits to support the candidates of their choice.

The ruling led to the creation of super PACs, which allowed special interests to raise and spend unlimited funds to promote political candidates.

An analysis by Daniel Weiner, director of elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that their funding “comes largely from a small group of the very richest donors.”

From 2010 to 2022, super PACs spent approximately $6.4 billion for the federal election. They spent an estimated $2.7 billion in the 2024 election.

There were and are restrictions on donations to certain candidates and political parties. Super PACs cannot coordinate with campaigns.

Until the Supreme Court ruling, there were limits to the coordination of the parties. No longer.

The parties “have complained that the outside super PACs are spending too much. Whether that’s true or not is debatable,” Kolker said.

However, the court decision makes it easier for major donors to funnel money to the parties, knowing that the parties can now seamlessly direct the funds to the candidates they believe need it most.

Republicans pushed for the ruling, with many in the GOP believing that Democrats had the advantage of receiving more, often smaller, contributions to their candidates, while Republicans relied on larger donors who felt more bound by contribution limits and restrictions.

Republicans welcomed the decision.

“By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored the essence of political speech and ensured that the parties can compete on a level playing field,” said a joint statement from Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, chairman of the House GOP Campaign Committee.

The Democrats saw things very differently. The ruling “is a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence on the GOP agenda and an invitation to corruption,” said a joint statement from Democratic Party Chairman Ken Martin, Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., who heads the party’s House campaign committee, and Gillibrand.

Maine and other swing states for Senate control

To gain control of those chambers, Democrats will need a net gain of four seats in the Senate and three in the House of Representatives in the November elections.

The biggest money will likely go to a handful of Senate races.

Maine has been a top target for Democrats, although the uproar surrounding Platner’s candidacy makes the candidacy unpredictable.

It had been a hard-fought race. In the Siena/New York Times/Portland Press Herald Poll conducted June 19-26, before the recent Platner controversy erupted, had him leading Collins by 2 points. Trump’s approval rating was 36%.

Maine Democrats have until July 27 to choose a replacement for Platner, who dropped out of the race on July 8.

The court ruling “won’t mean any big changes in the amount of money that goes into a competitive race. They already have super PAC money and they already have megadonors giving to parties,” Glavin said.

In Ohio, money could play a bigger role massive expenses in 2024 — a record $483.4 million in non-presidential elections, according to AdImpact — helped Republicans dismiss incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, as a GOP-leaning state. Brown lost to Republican businessman Bernie Moreno by 4 points.

“I think the money made a difference last time in driving up Brown’s negative vote,” said Jessica Taylor, Senate and governors editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Brown will now be able to draw on more of the party’s expertise and resources as he runs this year against Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican who will be appointed to the seat in 2025 to succeed Vice President J.D. Vance.

Iowa is another money battleground. “Money could make a big difference if Democrats spend money there,” Taylor said. Democrats are trying to win the seat currently held by Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican who is not seeking re-election. Democrat Josh Turek is running against Republican Ashley Hinson from the USA.

Levy provided this example of where shifting party funds could be significant. Assume the polls hold and former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, remains the favorite to win a North Carolina Senate seat now held by Republican Thom Tillis in his campaign against it Republican Michael Whatley.

“The national party might say we’re going to write off North Carolina because Cooper has a big lead and is extremely well known in the state. It would be difficult to beat him,” Levy said. Maybe they would funnel more money to Texas, where Rep. James Talarico and Attorney General Ken Paxton are were tied in last month’s Siena poll.

The court ruling gives “much more power to the party leaders who control how these funds are spent,” Kolker said, and probably more influence over Congress itself, making it easier to enforce party discipline.

Does massive money matter?

Experts are quick to warn that having a lot of money is no guarantee of success.

There are simply too many moving factors influencing voters — their economic situation, their views on President Donald Trump and their disillusionment with the political establishment, to name a few.

“You want to have solid television programming, but the political environment is still going to play a role in a lot of these races,” Taylor said.

For a candidate and a political party, the most vital thing is often to build and maintain an image and reputation. For this reason, incumbents typically win election after election.

“There is still an advantage for the incumbent. There are cycles where voter dissatisfaction and frustration reaches a point where the only way to express your frustration is to vote against whoever is in power,” he said Todd EberlyProfessor of Political Science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.

Maine is a good example of the advantages and disadvantages of money.

Collins has been a senator since 1997. “Collins will play to her strengths. The people of Maine, no matter what the left may say, feel that she has good moral character and is in touch with the values ​​of Mainers,” Levy said.

Democrats will undoubtedly try to link her to Trump and the Washington establishment. At the same time, he said, “Maine is a favorable state, and money will fly in to say that Susan Collins is in tune with Maine.”

The race will be a test of all the factors that influence a race, financial and otherwise.

“Candidates who spend more are significantly more likely to win,” Eberly said. “With one exception. If you’re an incumbent, it (big spending) doesn’t make much of a difference.”